In the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, President Bush states, “America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will help nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists – because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization.” This sounds like a solid plan to stabilize the global system in accordance with American idealism and military might. Why then, one might ask, does the State department urge a diplomatic solution instead of a military one in Chechnya when terrorists are clearly opposed to such productive political talks and the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, refuses to negotiate with the Chechen terrorists as well? Bush’s doctrine of preemptive force against potential threats only applies in some cases, most notably those in Iraq, with its disappearing WMD’s. He is flip flopping on his own doctrine, yet he accuses John Kerry of doing the same: one minute Bush is for praised by his base for stabilizing regions and threatening states who harbor terrorists, but in certain situations he still uses diplomacy to render a non-violent self determining solution. In the opinion of many political scientists, Chechnya has a higher risk of selling black market WMD’s to Korea and other nation states and terrorist groups than Iraq ever had .

Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Tuesday that “our view on the overall situation has not changed.” That is, he said, ultimately “there must be a political settlement” over Chechnya. He said U.S. officials had met with Chechens with a variety of views in the past, although “we do not meet with terrorists.” There may be additional meetings in the future, though none are planned, he said.
Responding to Russian suspicions that the terrorist group that seized the school in Beslan included Arabs with ties to the al-Qaida terror network, Boucher said the Bush administration did not have any definitive information.

Definitive information or not, Bush cannot afford to get us into another preemptive war economically or politically before this election unless it is a direct and massive threat to national security. Let’s only pray the American diplomats and the CIA and FBI are working hard enough to uncover any linkages between terrorist plots between Al Qada and the Chechen terrorist groups in Russia.

The members of the European Union are much more reluctant to join America, a country they view as a “culture of death”, according to Robert Kagan, because we no longer share a common “strategic culture” because of the lost Cold War dynamic. Based on their national identity which now fears violence much more than us (and lacks the resources to engage in such seemingly senseless warfare in Iraq), it should be the aim of the United States, particularly the State Department, to foster self determination as we have failed to do at the UN since 9/11 in all nation states by letting them experience terrorism themselves. It is pleasing to hear that the Preemptive Doctrine laid forth in the National Security Strategy of the US knows its own limitations, and will “Work with others to diffuse regional conflicts” as it proclaims. This is the first step into the manifestation of any kind of a Kantian “Perpetual Peace” between sovereign nation-state actors, although seemingly a lost cause today. Eventually, countries will hopefully find domestic reasons, one by one, over the course of many years, to join us in defeating terrorism as a concept, not just sending minimal supoprt in attacking single cells or groups. Chechnya is giving Russia a reason to engage terrorism as a concept, and ironically, the best place to start doing that for them is within.

The fact is that all civilized nations are united in their resistance to terrorism, but internal domestic politics have prevented many of them from jumping into another war with the US. Russia, France and Germany all had a large investment in Iraqi oil when we made a toppled Saddam’s regime, and oops, the pipelines too. These prudent actors furthermore did not believe the case put forth by Colin Powell at the UN, and after all, Hans Blix found nothing. After the invasion, Prime Minister Tony Blair said: “Any mistakes made should not be laid at the door of our intelligence and security community. They do a tremendous job. I accept full personal responsibility for the way the issue was presented and therefore any errors made. ” Why did President Bush not make a similar announcement taking responsibility for getting us into a egg hunt for WMD’s that never existed. Is he waiting until November First to reveal them? Where is Osama? Why did we go after Saddam when the clear first threat was completely unrelated? Why is our President counting that the American voters are as dumb as he is to get their public mandate? Why is Bush not held accountable for misleading us into a war with no clear cause and effect relationship besides of a mistake and why has he not taken responsibility for it? What is the exit strategy for Iraq, and why did we not hear a peep about it at the Republican National Convention?

America’s national memory of war is generally perceived in Europe as trigger-happy, especially under Bush 43. We made it out of WWII much better than the British and the Russians, and certainly much better than both Germany and France, and the global system of international political economy was tilted in our favor throughout the cold war because we lent most of the money to Germany and England to fund World War I . Russia, the failed hegemon, nowadays is focused on fostering a more nationalistic political agenda because the cold war tapped all their resources, and it eventually fell under its own weight, forced by the international political economy of competing with us in fueling the doomsday machine. Let’s not forget they really defeated the Nazis: they lost around 25 million people, 6 million alone at the battle of Stalingrad, whereas the United States only lost around 500,000 in World War II total.

Perhaps the American strategy in seeking a political solution in Chechnya is to abandon suggesting the use of force against Chechen terrorists to force a progressive change towards a more austere domestic Russian policy against terrorism into joining the coalition willing nation-states who will support us in preemptive warfare in places like Iraq. Domestic politics and national memory might eventually change Kremlin policy to terrorism as an interdependent global problem requiring a shoft in foreign policy itself. Only an interdependent solution can effectively combat such a threat to global security.

3 comments

‘Among the calamities of war, may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates, and credulity encourages.’ Samuel Johnson.
If you are amazed at the way Bush has backtracked and flip-flopped (for which the so-called free press/media propaganda machine has allowed him every time to weasel his way back to a position of ‘integrity’), then you’ll be surprised to find that few wars in history (and very far between) have qualified to be just and right. Please, excuse me if I seem to be rambling on, its a habit of mine. I thought your essay was very thought out and convincing.
When it comes to the truth that always comes stumbling in last place after the parade of lies, I have determined that whatever this administration says should reasonable and logically taken as opposite. When Bush says ‘peace’ he naturally means ‘war’; he says ‘ownership society’ he is earnestly trying to say ‘slavery society’, and so on. So, lets take a more recent example, in that he states that he thinks the situation in Chechnya would be better solved diplomatically. This simply means that the administration has recognized that they are not willingly to do anything to support a peaceful solution to the conflict…in fact they would do better for the Chechens and the Russians to keep duking it out forever. Cut and paste this Bush practice to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and presto, you have the Road Map to Peace. It would be laughable, it not so many innocents suffered from the joke.
Anyway, the Chechens seem to be very close to the Caspian Sea, I see…hmmm. Well, what’s important about the Caspian Sea, you ask? Good question. The Caspian Sea, since the late 80s and early 90s, has been coveted by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Britian and of course (how could I forget) the US for its resources: namely its largest reserve of natural gas and other mineral deposits in the WORLD. Is it so hard to imagine that Chechnya is an interminable war zone when this is the same case in every other 3rd world struggling country or region that happens to have a gold mine or oil or cheap labor market? Look at Sudan today; Sudan is in no more destitute and desperate situation than the Dominican Republic (a little closer to our borders). The only difference is that one has oil and the other doesn’t. A funny (and wise) man once said that there’s never a civil war nowaday where there is nothing to fight over. Hence, Chechnya’s strategic location near the Caspian Sea was nothing more than the omen of the internal and external strife to come. Oh, well, you ask, what about Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Iran, which all border the Caspian Sea? Why have those countries been racked by war from invaders (Russian and others)? Well, simply put, they all share a common characteristic: they are vicious dictatorships whom the US and Russia both help to support and who brutalize its people without remorse. Kazakhstan is interesting, because it has been put on many a list of human rights abusers, but that hasn’t deterred freedom-loving Bush officials here from cozying up. A friendly face Dick Cheney was for a long time on a US-Kazakhstan foreign relations board to help ensure that the friendly Kazakhstans were enjoying their freedoms and liberties (being taken away of course) and utilizing their resources (by which I mean taking out of the hands of the common people). Ah, the sweet stench of Americacracy!
Anyway, with exception of Georgia (who saw its first democratically elected dictator>all the rest just rudely stepped into power) and Iran (whose oligarchical class won’t cede any power to either the Russians or Americans), all these Caspian states are merely puppet governments, fronts for the extraction of a cleaner, more environmentally friendly energy source to fill up our H2s (hey, Bush actually may have been telling the truth on ‘our quest to find alternative fuels’).
By the way, when one says the Cold War is over (if it ever really existed except in its sensationalization and propaganda by the American media), consider the split we see when it comes to Chechnya, Iraq, Taiwan, and Korea (North and South). The West (US, Britain, and sometimes France, Spain, European powers, etc) always opt for the Russians to stop persecuting and clusterbombing Chechnya and for the Chinese to stop interfering with Taiwan and Korea. On the other hand, the East (China, Russia, sometimes India, at one time even Pakistan) feel that they are conducting legitimate business in their region of the world (and say that the US does the same thing in our hemisphere) and that the West is the culprit interfering with Chechnya, Taiwan, and Korea. The split between West and East was no more evident than in the events that led to Operation Iraqi Freedom (Bushspeak for slavery). Britain, Italy, Spain, and the United States were the main supporters to invade Iraq; Russia, China, and France (huh!?!) opposed. However, let me say this, just because theives have fallen out in a gang doesn’t mean that the gang has fallen apart. He makes no friend who never made a foe. Anyway, thanks for the good things you guys here do, it is appreciated by people who find treasure in knowledge and reflection.
Peace only Peace